Sir_Godspeed

Slavery and conquest aren't mutually exclusive. I know this isn't an historical example, but the Hebrew enslavement in Egypt is pretty much presented exactly like this, although the start of their (alleged) enslavement there is a bit more complicated than just being conquered. EDIT: Anyhow, there are plenty of mundane, cost-effective ways to keep slaves. Terror tactics, public torture, decimation, branding, normal (unenchanted) collars, social stigma, hostages, removal from local area, etc. etc. have all been used in real life to great effect. The odd spell here or there isn't going to make much difference, much like the odd shiv here or there doesn't dismantle the entire prison system. However, there will always be slave rebellions, and more commonly just riots. Most commonly, however, is the so-called "weapons of the weak", which is dragging your feet, purposely screwing up tasks, faking injury and so on. These are less effective in the hands of particularly brutal masters.

That was basically what I was already saying, at least.

I'm currently working on my degree in social anthropology myself, and Glorantha's impressive width and depth is why I'm drawn to it, so maybe I'm one of those who take it a bit too serious (time will tell, I suppose) However, I do play a bit fast and loose with the old professional cultural relativism, since I'm aware that this is not just a cultural or social context to analyse and attempt to understand, but something people will be dropped into and expected to be very much subjective about, and have subjective opinions over, whether in- or out-of-character. Since joining this forum, I have had fun both disappearing into cosmological/ontological musings, as well as trying to get down to the individual's perspective and to get a feel of hypothetical "lived realities", based on the background material (which otherwise read a lot like those old interwar-era "omniscient ethnographer" kind of texts that have since been thoroughly deconstructed in RW academic anthropology). While that is true, that's not quite what I meant (aside from that I do believe Greg did work to give women an non-hetero characters more power and leeway than they'd have in the RW equivalent eras), rather what I was trying to point out is that not everyone want to sit down to play a game set in a make-believe world and be met with the same kind of stuff they might have suffered themselves, or the same kind of prejudices they're sick and tired of in real life. A GM who is sensitive to their players' preferences might just want to adjust things a bit so people can get to have the power/freedom fantasy they want, rather than a somewhat arbitrarily defined sense of verisimillitude.

While I agree with this, and was about to post something similar, I also understand if a GM or Guide or whatever might feel like adapting things to be a bit more palateable for their players - especially if some of the players are women, or from other groups that have historically been treated very badly. Not to mention people who've actually suffered abuse themselves on a personal level. Glorantha already deviates from RW Bronze age cultures in some aspects to make things a bit less rigid perhaps, and to open up for fun quests and the like, and while some of that is possibly based on archaeological and anthropological discoveries, other aspects are, well, made up to serve the idea of adventurism.

I agree with the above. It's all well and good to start a slave revolt if you're a bunch of chained-up, desperate war captives with little to lose - but what if your entire clan/tribe/city was enslaved, and revolting means that, quite likely, a punishment army will be dispatched to kill everyone - including your wife and children. Simple slavery might be more acceptable than that. This also depends on if there is a real market for individuals slaves, in the sense of what we find post-1492 with the transatlantic slave trade, where individuals rather than local populations were enslaved, and bartered off in a proto/early-capitalist manner. Given that much of Peloria is densely populated due to already-present local population, there might not be that much point in importing individuals slaves, for example. Better to use the slaves in the areas where they were subjugated to build and maintain the frontier. The attitude of "outsider aren't moral entities" does seem to prevail in many areas of Glorantha, as it did in real life. Hence the enormous importance of collective agreements (Shadow Tribute, etc.) essentially making it possible to give aliens a place in the moral schema. You see similar things in the real world. A friend of mine did fieldwork on a small island in the pacific, and she was adopted into a household (complete with a ceremony) that allowed people in the local community to "make sense of her" beyond her just being a stranger who no one could really figure out. Of course, murdering her or selling her in slavery was never an option to them, but you catch my drift.

Pardon for maybe appearing ignorant again, but is Yelmalio even that particularly "loyal" to Yelm? It seems that in areas away from Peloria, he's very much his own god, doing his own thing, as it were. I mean, the Yelmic underworld and resurrection cycle is obviously going on in the background, but from what I've seen in my brief time in Glorantha, Yelm seems more like context than anything else. With Elmal, Orlanth seems much more of an active part of his narrative and identity. EDIT: I guess what I'm saying is that the "watchman" function of Elmal seems more to be taken up by Antirius or Polaris, the former of which is at least partially analogous to Yelmalio, but "cultically" distinct.

That sort of what I was getting at: If we accept the premise that, in general, Orlanth is a god of men, as opposed to Erlanda as a goddess of women, and we accept the premise that a chief is a priest of Orlanth by definition (this seems to be the most contentious thing here), but we also know there have been female chiefs and kings of the Orlanthi Then my question is whether it would be an acceptable method for a woman to connect with Orlanth in preparation for chieftaincy by initiating to Vinga as a subcult of Orlanth. It basically boils down to, whether this would be compatible with Orlanth Rex as a subcult as well. Or could she just stick with Ernalda or some other feminine goddess?

One could also imagine forced breaches of a geas in the cases where that is applicable.

Would it be possible, then, for a female Vingan cultist to "approach" the Orlanth Rex cult in order to become chieftain, depending on how the clan in question regards the relation between Vinga and Orlanth?

Can Vingans be chiefs? Also, how is Orlanth Rex different from Orlanth the King?

It's not that Viking Age Norway didn't have clans (ætter, perhaps more accurately translated as lineages), but rather that compared to the highly corporate clans of the Orlanthi, their political-military function does not appear to have been as formalized. The Things also usually seem to appear to have been based on locality rather than descent, as far as I know. Anyway, sometimes it's useful to look to Viking Age to gain some insight to the Orlanthi, other times not. I'm still working on which is which. With that kind of density there has to be a significant amount of intensely farmed land around those settlements. I'm reminded of some texts I read about Pashtun agriculture in the Swat valley in Pakistan. Similar elevation, though maybe not climate, and irrigated terrase farmland rather than the barley fields the Sartarites seem to prefer - but some interesting similarities in social stratification and collective land ownership nonetheless. Oh, and the endemic warfare, of course.

Yeah, I think you're right, both of you. I was struggling a bit to mentally picture the density, etc. RW Bronze Age settlements tend to be quite densely clustered around a central authority, and I suppose I also had some ill-fitting images of manoralist High Middle Ages Europe with its feudal serfs in packed villages in the middle of the fields. However, upon reflection, the settlement pattern I'm thinking of is now more akin to how my own country was in the 1600-1800s, where many free farmers (bonde - "settled man") (Norway never really developed a proper village concept or manoralist culture) had peripheral properties (usually a physically distinct clearing/stead) that were rented out to what is known as husmenn ("house men" - ie. a cottager, or tenant farmer). They would be given a small plot to farm themselves, against paying a rent which was usually payed out in labor and annual agricultural goods. Unlike serfs, these house-men were free to leave whenever they wanted, theoretically, and they could conceivably clear new land to make their own farm. As far as I understand it, similar patterns existed in the more rural parts of England, mostly in the north and west, outside the stronger influence Norman-style manor economies. This dynamic, with the added context of the clan as a property-regulating institution seems like a pretty decent fit for Kerofinelan/Heortland Orlanthi. Thanks, everyone.

I wonder if there is some forgotten connection between Stone/Latsom, the rest of the Earth panoply (Gata, Genert, etc.) the ancient giants, and possibly even Larnste (High King Elf supposedly killed Stone and made all stone "still", and Larnste is the Movement old god who went around planting mountains...)

Don't forget that the spear of Korang was made of iron, meaning he either got or stole it from the Mostali, somehow. Or at some point some Chaos-being figured out the secret of making it. Either way, that's possibly another Earth/Stone-connection.

Heh, it's a magical shout in Skyrim that by sheer volume and force will rattle and toss your enemies about like ragdolls. In the lore of the Elder Scrolls it's also been used to knock down city gates and the like. Pardon for not explaining it, I just made the post for a quick chuckle.

A bit of Praxian Fus Roh Da.

You lost me a bit there, as there were a bit too many big words after one another. Or maybe it's just early over here. HOWEVER, the difference in Gloranthan terms between just acting out a story and a Heroquest is, to my knowledge at least, that a Heroquest is a reenactment that connects to a pre-Time myth. The best definition of myth is something like "a sacred story", and the sacredness is the key aspect here. Simply acting out any old story won't really cut it. By this definition the Moana story isn't so much a heroquest as perhaps the original story on which a later heroquest would be based - or maybe she is in a sense reenacting her ancestors' voyages, I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong here, and that Heroquests can be novel in their events, even within Time. Secondly, there's the notion of mixed linear and cyclical time in Glorantha, which seems like a pretty clear loan from Australian aboriginal Dreamtime, which essentially makes the Heroquest a Songline (the path one travels to reenact the ancient and ongoing events of mythical entities to shape the landscape and define social norms) and the act of Heroquesting roughly analogous to the Walkabout in some aspects. The separation of secular theatre from traditional public rituals is a topic I don't know a whole lot about, but it's interesting in its own right.

All out of likes, but thanks for elaborating for me.

Altruism is a rare thing in realistic settings - so it's extra inspiring when it appears. Very cool. Where is this from, the Six Ages game? I guess this means that it was the southern Hyalorings who brought Elmal with them into the Berenenthelli and consequently to the wider Vingkotling/Heortling society? ---- One thing that I'be looked into, and maybe missed before - is that apparently Yelmalio is associated with the Yellow Planet. Now, the Yellow Planet (which seems to be synonymous with Lightfore and the Little Sun, although I'm not entirely sure if that's totally accurate.) basically travels the sun path every night in a manner same as the sun during the day. What amused me a bit by this is that the Yellow Planet thus seems more like the RW moon than those actual moons we have in Glorantha otherwise - which appear in the sky at all times (at least the Red One) or was destroyed long ago. That aside, it strikes me as odd that Yelmalio apparently is associated with a night time celestial light, but Elmal isn't? I don't want to make a re-thread into the whole "is Elmal the literal sun or what now"-debate, but it just struck me as odd that two gods identified as the same in many newer sources would be associated with a day-time and night-time event, respectively. On the other hand, it could explain, celestiologically, why Yelmalio does not have the Fire Rune (night time stars are not warm, however bright they may be) whereas Elmal has it (he carries the torch that is the sun across the sky daily!) Or maybe I'm putting too much stock in wikis.

No, I'm genuinely ignorant.

How's his relation to Humakt? By some accounts Eurmal pretty much created Humakt, after all. EDIT: Not literally, but eh, you know what I mean.

There is a similarity to Odalsrett (primogeniture combined with preference for relatives to take over rather than non-relatives) and medieval Norwegian Åsetesrett (the right to buy back family land that's been sold out of the family for the same price) is there - but what's different is the highly formalized and corporate (in the sense of "acting like a unified body") nature of the clans is different, from what I know. The comparison to the Iriqois is probably good, and I should read up on them. I'm also reminded of the Fur people of Sudan (of "Darfur" fame), who also practice property allotment by clan on a generational basis, I think (although there the husband and wife are given separate parcels that they own individually, apropos of nothing). I'm just wondering what exactly happens on a practical level. "Hey, Bargand, you know Tulstvar, that cottar of yours who has a stead on the outskirts of your land and owes you one lamb and x loads of butter every spring, and three days of labor every week, against that you help him plow his fields in spring and high summer? Yeah, we've decided he doesn't need to do that anymore, and also he'll be taking some of the fields you were previously using as per the chief's decision. Cheers!" Maybe I'm underestimating the amount of free (or even just fallow) land there is to go around. Or maybe a change in cottar to carl status implies neolocalisation, where a former cottar moves off his old patron's land and out of the old cottage in order to build himself a new carl-stead.

Heh, that's a very interesting image, a potent one, if you will. Again, interesting. I do like the idea of the Golden Age caused by a kind of "coup d'etat", as it were, though I'm not quite sure what would cause the darkness on the surface before the Gods War. Or maybe I'm thinking about this wrong - if Darkness was the first element, perhaps her presence on the surface in the Green Age was marginalized and subsequently forgotten by the Celestial "coup". Do you know where I could read this? That IS a very powerful secret: the ability of how to go on in the face of insurmountable odds. To accept one's own mortality and powerlessness, and yet realize one's own agency. That Vith is Aether is entirely news to me. I must admit, I did a double-take. Upon further looking around, it seems TarnGatHa/Dogsalu is the one equated with Aether by the God Learners, as he is the father of Govmeranen (who is equated with Yelm, apparently). All of this strike me as a bit of a forced fit, perhaps mostly because the Eastern/Vithelan mythology is so different and estranged from the north and west. Vith seems a lot more dualistic than a mono-elemental identification would allow for. And his focus of mystics (while at the same time being sacrificed to like a deity by his descendants) might offer some insight into the mystic traditions in Peloria, yet it seems uncharacteristically... "chill" - for how we see the Sky deities behave elsewhere. That is a delicious conspiracy, although it, together with the idea of a Aetheric "coup" does paint the Sky-rune beings in a very conceited and poor light (no pun intended). I'm wondering if there's something more complex to it.

As someone who heard about this for the first time now, my mind went straight to the sound of thunder as well.

If a carl is defined by his alloted property (whether cattle or land), and property is alloted by the clan ring/chieftain, how does one accumulate personal wealth to rise in rank - or indeed, when? It's very tempting to look at the Heortling society as analogous of Germanic Migration Era/Dark Age society, due to the obviously borrowed terminology and closely resembling hierarchy, but as various publishers and writers have made quite the point of emphasizing over the years, Heortlings are not Saxons or Vikings. One of the things that drive that home the best for me is the highly corporate clan structure. I'd imagine it's inspired by (Scots?) Gaelic social structure, but sadly I don't know a lot about that, I'm afraid. Hence my question above. For example, if a cottar somehow manages to amass a great deal* of wealth (maybe he had an exceptional few years with calfing?) how does he "appeal" to the clan to be given non-dependent land, and greater share of it to boot? Can he do that at all? If not, how do we explain social mobility at all? (*"Great deal" from a Heortling commoner's perspective, of course.)